Andrew Kohut of Pew Research cautions that Republicans should reflect on problems with their messenger before re-tooling their message.
« Taking A Longer View | Main | The First Pollster Delivers Some Democratic Math »
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e2017c33794e08970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Mormon Financier Couldn't Connect:
The comments to this entry are closed.
Who's next? Paul Ryan?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | November 14, 2012 at 12:04 PM
All campaigns are the same, whether political, commercial or military, in that failure can be the result of bad leadership, bad strategy or bad tactics. The challenge is to properly identify and correct the real source of failure and to avoid wasting time and effort on issues that played a much lesser role... all of which is made more difficult by the chorus of dissident voices arguing that they, and they alone, know the reason why the campaign failed.
Since Romney lost there has been no shortage of people pushing their view as to why he lost. Immigration, insufficient conservatism, women's issues (whatever they are), failure to properly respond to Obama's early negative campaign, a liberal media, etc., etc., etc, have all been offered up as THE reason Romney lost.
Posted by: steve | November 14, 2012 at 12:12 PM
So we now need Pew to save Republicans from themselves by talking better sense to them than they're capable of themselves.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | November 14, 2012 at 12:13 PM
I think all of us here bemoaned that Romney would ultimately be a hard sell and hoped the demonstrated ineptitude of the JEF would make Mitt look good enough in comparison.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 14, 2012 at 12:15 PM
While there certainly were problems with this particular "messenger," characterizing Romney as a "weak candidate" seems to me to be an attempt to get the rest of the Republican field off the hook. Which of the Republican candidates in the primaries would have been a stronger candidate? The Democrats would have had a field day with Newt Gingrich. Rick Perry was the very definition of a "weak candidate" from the time he entered the race for the primaries. Herman Cain self-destructed under the pressure of smears which most likely originated with the Democrats. Rick Santorum would have been stridently demonized for the "war on women." And Michelle Bachmann would have gotten the full Sarah Palin treatment.
Honestly, I think the truth was that Romney was the best candidate from a weak field and he ran a very good campaign which was nonetheless too cautious to overcome a few of the key obstacles he faced. You could say that he underestimated the significance of those obstacles, but I wouldn't say that he was a weak candidate in general.
Posted by: Kurt | November 14, 2012 at 12:15 PM
--While there certainly were problems with this particular "messenger," characterizing Romney as a "weak candidate" seems to me to be an attempt to get the rest of the Republican field off the hook.--
No, it's an attempt to understand why he lost so that we can avoid taking the democrat's advice and becoming more like them to win elections, as though they have been the dominant party of the last thirty years.
It's easy to forget that Republican control of even one house of congress seemed like a hopeless pipe dream just twenty years ago.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | November 14, 2012 at 12:36 PM
Evidently we need to be more like the much-maligned George W. Bush to win elections.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 14, 2012 at 12:45 PM
When you miss by ~2%, any little change in the big things (message, messenger, GOTV) might've made the difference. That said, I've always maintained that Romney was the easiest of the GOP front runners to vilify (at least class warfare-wise), and the least capable of carrying the torch for the big issue (Obamacare).
Posted by: Cecil Turner | November 14, 2012 at 12:45 PM
Republicnas should investigate ACORN the NAACP, the unions and a handful of other left wing groups that stole the election. This was a coup not an election.
Posted by: GoneWithTheWind | November 14, 2012 at 12:51 PM
Capt'n,
That's exactly where I was coming from.
Posted by: Sue | November 14, 2012 at 12:54 PM
The decision you've all been waiting for! Angus King will caucus with the Democrats.
Posted by: marlene | November 14, 2012 at 12:55 PM
I don't know what was wrong with Romney but the base never cottened to him. He lost to John McCain for crikes sake. The last 2 elections we have run a moderate. And the last 2 elections we lost. Think on that one before we go and change everything we stand for.
Posted by: Sue | November 14, 2012 at 12:56 PM
We need someone who can connect with minority ladyparts.
Posted by: Extraneus | November 14, 2012 at 12:58 PM
Marlene,
I'm shocked. ::eyeroll::
Posted by: Sue | November 14, 2012 at 12:58 PM
The Republicans were defeated on election day because, ________________(you fill in the blanks).
The American people in general lost everything else.
That is the part I am having problems getting over, America lost..
We lost the chance to deregulate the burdensome regulations that are strangling the commerce of this once great nation. After four more years this will never be reversed.
We lost the chance of selecting at least half way decent individuals to the SC, not someone that will use the Constitution as something other then intended.
We lost the overall image that America's form of Government is unique within this world.. We are becoming "them"..
We were the moral, financial an militarily leader of the world..We are now becoming "them".
Who among us, can say that we are, or, we will, ever be what we were once..not I.
I was born in the middle of the Great depression maybe I will die in another..
Posted by: Agent J | November 14, 2012 at 01:00 PM
We need someone who can connect with minority ladyparts.
We want someone who's dating a black lady?
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | November 14, 2012 at 01:01 PM
Sarah hoyt has some good advice: http://accordingtohoyt.com/2012/11/14/dont-lie-flat/
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | November 14, 2012 at 01:02 PM
Sue, not to play devil's advocate because I'm in agreement with you, GWB was not a conservative. The MFM invented a caricature of him as making Reagan look like a lib, but he was as free spending as a person can be.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 14, 2012 at 01:02 PM
Part of the problem, as well, was the enduring cult of personality with Obama. As a friend remarked the other day, Obama knew what he was doing by going on "The View" and MTV and other such media outlets. He was going for the low-information voters who still responded to his cult of personality. Romney ran a campaign that depended on reasonably informed voters making rational decisions. His biggest strategic mistake may have been having too much faith in the ability of voters to make those kinds of decisions.
Posted by: Kurt | November 14, 2012 at 01:02 PM
the main thing that was wrong with Romney was his poor choice of campaign polling advisers, who incorrectly led him on.
it has made me question where does the buck stop? when you are being misled, does the buck stop with you or the misleaders?
Posted by: Chubby | November 14, 2012 at 01:06 PM
Cap'n H hits a grand slam at 1:02PM.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | November 14, 2012 at 01:07 PM
We want someone who's dating a black lady?
I might quibble a bit and go for someone with a multi-etnhic minority girlfriend, just to be on the safe side, but that's an excellent idea. Even a married guy could work, as long as the single ladies think he still has an eye for them.
Anyone think that pic hurt Obama's re-election chances?
Posted by: Extraneus | November 14, 2012 at 01:09 PM
Cecil,
At least there's not another self financed oligarch purchasing "most electable" status from boot licking "conservative" commentators at the moment. We might be even be spared a year of ill thought out lunges for the brass ring this time.
The GOP holds thirty state houses plus the House. It's not going to disappear and the oligarchy is dieing, not growing. The Tea Party isn't dieing either. nor is the Wisconsin Reform movement.
We're not going to be short of qualified candidates and the only real danger is another zombie oligarch.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | November 14, 2012 at 01:12 PM
Captn
He was an old Texas democrat. And I'm not referring to his age. They had to invent a name for him. Compassionate conservative.
Posted by: Sue | November 14, 2012 at 01:14 PM
Chubby wrote:the main thing that was wrong with Romney was his poor choice of campaign polling advisers, who incorrectly led him on.
it has made me question where does the buck stop? when you are being misled, does the buck stop with you or the misleaders?
Those are excellent questions. And I think that, to use Romney's language from the first debate, Romney has a track record of "picking winners and losers," and this time he picked the losers. Obama, on the other hand, has a record of picking losers in everything but his campaign advisers.
Posted by: Kurt | November 14, 2012 at 01:14 PM
Bush has always been a social conservative.
Posted by: Sue | November 14, 2012 at 01:17 PM
but he was as free spending as a person can be.
Sorry but that's untrue on its face. Obama is far more a free spender than Bush.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 14, 2012 at 01:21 PM
"Which of the Republican candidates in the primaries would have been a stronger candidate?"
Ultimately Romney proved to be pretty good IMO. Nevertheless Newt had some strengths that Romney did not display.
The ability to go toe to toe with the MFM. Like it or not, despite some baggage, it may have made him more difficult for the MFM to trash.
But more than that Newt has the ability to explain why conservative principles work and leftism doesn't.
My speculation is Newt could have used the media, desplite themselves, to bust open Benghazi. You don't give a fighter like Newt that kind of weapon and expect to come out of it unscathed.
Would very much like to see Paul Ryan develop some of those same qualities. He seems to have the potential.
Posted by: boris | November 14, 2012 at 01:22 PM
((Bush has always been a social conservative. ))
he was opposed to gay marriage
Posted by: Chubby | November 14, 2012 at 01:23 PM
The MFM invented a caricature of him as making Reagan look like a lib, but he was as free spending as a person can be.
Unless you're going to argue that Obama is not a person, that's clearly not true.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | November 14, 2012 at 01:27 PM
Romney's greatest strength, his success in the business world, was used against him.
Posted by: Sue | November 14, 2012 at 01:30 PM
There are tweets then there are tweets that could save your life, especially if you are a senior Hamas official:)
Posted by: Jack is Back | November 14, 2012 at 01:31 PM
Bush let Republicans run wild to maintain the coalition for Iraq. IMO of course.
Posted by: Sue | November 14, 2012 at 01:31 PM
There is some Rep.Garamendi (Calif) on C-SPAN right now talking about climate change. (I'm waiting for the press conference). Good Lord. These people are nuts. We are in SO much trouble...
Posted by: Janet | November 14, 2012 at 01:32 PM
If Rick Santorum had be our candidate I think we would have been clobbered much worse. Or Michelle Bachmann. Or Hermann Caine. Or John HUntsman. Or Ron Paul.
Rick Perry had the opportunity and the potential initially, but unfortunately he was not ready for prime time in the debates. If he had been, maybe we could have made an argument for him.
Newt was a candidate severely damaged by personal baggage, but he did have the fiery tongue to go after the MSM and I liked his idea of chasing Obama around the country demanding Lincoln Style debates. He would never have got such a thing but it would have been interesting seeing how that played out.
Okay, Obama is speaking.
Posted by: daddy | November 14, 2012 at 01:34 PM
It's a dark day when anyone is considering anything Pew says as being even tangentially favorable to the cause of conservatism.
Romney lost because of turnout. That likely happened for a couple of reasons:
a. Jugears and his state media waged a successful campaign of demoralization and demonization on Romney.
b. Republicans mistakenly relied on national outrage and misery to do the hard work of GOTV.
The message wasn't the problem. Conservatism isn't the problem. Even the candidate wasn't the problem (Mitt was a good man, and would have done a good job).
The problem is that the Republican establishment refuses to believe that perception is reality for the majority of low- and moderate-information voters. We were beaten by superior marketing of a cult of personality, enabled by a willing media and supported by an electorate dazzled by image.
Unfortunately, as a result of the SCOAMF winning, I believe this is possibly the last fair election we will have in the country. Candidate X in 2016 is going to have to contend not only with an openly hostile media, but also with institutionalized voter fraud, cronyism and corruption, and a swelling segment of voters who will receive some or all of their income from Uncle Sugar.
Posted by: Soylent Red | November 14, 2012 at 01:34 PM
I'll answer on the Cap's behalf and say Bush was as free spending as can be and still be called, erroneously, a conservative.
I hope I did ok by CH.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | November 14, 2012 at 01:36 PM
Doomy? Relax! Here's what you do.
#1. Make sure at least two of the children you know obtain a thorough grasp on the Founding principles and the Constitution.
#2. Get every conservative you know to do #1 and #2.
This will make for plenty of people who will have fair idea what to aim for in the 2020's and 30's when they have to pick up the pieces after the crash. This seems to me the only strategy for saving America that would work if actually executed.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | November 14, 2012 at 01:38 PM
--There is some Rep.Garamendi (Calif) on C-SPAN right now talking about climate change. (I'm waiting for the press conference). Good Lord. These people are nuts. We are in SO much trouble...
Posted by: Janet | November 14, 2012 at 01:32 PM--
John Garamendi grew up about twenty miles from me and his brother still lives on the family ranch.
In California, which as we know has no shortage of elected and appointed maggots, I believe he may be the most nakedly ambitious and principleless ass in a state whose main export is principless asses.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | November 14, 2012 at 01:39 PM
Sue wrote: Bush let Republicans run wild to maintain the coalition for Iraq. IMO of course.
I think there is some truth with that, at least with regards to spending. What I never understood was why Bush didn't ever respond more forcefully in responding to the Democrats' manufactured lies and attacks about the decision to go to war. Readers of JOM knew much more about the realities of Plamegate than the public at large. From my perspective, it seemed like all of the media latched onto Wilson's NYT Op-Ed piece and used that (and then the story they created about Plamegate) to discredit the war decision in any way they could. Bush was able to be re-elected, but the administration seemed to let those attacks go unanswered after that.
Posted by: Kurt | November 14, 2012 at 01:40 PM
Obama:
Our top priority has to be jobs and growth. WE have to have a growing middle class, rewarding small business that stay here and don't relocate overseas.
We have to reduce our debt and deficit. We have a deadline coming up and they need to be made in a balanced and responsible way. There is only 1 way to solve these challenges and that is to compromise and do it together. Taxes:There are 2 options on Taxes:
1) If Congress fails to act, everybody's Taxes go up, even the guys not making 250K per year
2) The other option is to Tax only the guys making more money than 250K.
The SEnate and the Dem's in the House already have a bill that does option 2. It is time for the House Repubs to get on board this idea. I am sure we can do this and this is the message from last weeks election. So that is my Tax plan. The House Repubs must join me and the Senate and the House Dems by them comrpomising and signing on to a Tax Bill that raises Taxes only on people making more than 250K. Now time for questions.
Posted by: daddy | November 14, 2012 at 01:41 PM
IIRC Bush's opposition to gay marriage is what turned Andrew Sullivan against him.
Posted by: Chubby | November 14, 2012 at 01:41 PM
#1. Make sure at least two of the children you know obtain a thorough grasp on the Founding principles and the Constitution.
#2. Get every conservative you know to do #1 and #2.
This. I would also add:
#3. Get your children out of public schools and away from the television.
Posted by: Soylent Red | November 14, 2012 at 01:41 PM
If GWB was not "a conservative" then neither was Reagan.
Posted by: boris | November 14, 2012 at 01:42 PM
Question On Petraeus:
Obama says nothing. You will have to talk to the FBI. I don't know anything. I can't meddle in Criminal investigations. That's how we do things here. I can't prejudge. We follow protocols here. Talk to the FBI.
Posted by: daddy | November 14, 2012 at 01:42 PM
It's incumbent on anyone who now blames candidate Romney to identify which other candidate would have fared better.
None of them would have. Period.
If we are to have a winner, the first thing that has to happen is for a winner to run.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | November 14, 2012 at 01:43 PM
Respect our opponent, the master campaigner. Obama had sealed files unsealed; petition signatures voided, and he spent $200 million demonizing Romney along with hundreds of millions in free publicity through the media.
He then had his statisticians break it down street by street while Romney's ORCA software crashed. Throw in 1-2% voter fraud and Republican apathy and Romney lost by 2.4%.
Posted by: matt | November 14, 2012 at 01:43 PM
You're all correct in pointing out that GWB was a piker on spending in comparison to the JEF. He was still free spending enough to produce the dueling disasters of 2006 and 2008.
Tammy Bruce is doing a Mystery Science Theater of the JEF's presser. She may go "over" the 5 minutes but she's pretty testy.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 14, 2012 at 01:43 PM
If GWB was not "a conservative" then neither was Reagan.
Wrong; Reagan would not have been pleased with the term "compassionate conservatism" and would have probably stated it was redundant.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 14, 2012 at 01:46 PM
CH,
Have you gotten any response from the S.O.S. yet? I have not...now there's a surprise!
Posted by: kave | November 14, 2012 at 01:47 PM
I am sick of the line - "the worst economic situation since the great depression"...It may be that NOW. But I don't believe Obama inherited that situation.
Posted by: Janet | November 14, 2012 at 01:47 PM
Tammy made it 9 minutes before shutting him off.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 14, 2012 at 01:48 PM
Question: Why will you not cave again and do the Bush Tax cuts again.? You said you wouldn't cave last time.
Obama: That was a one time proposition because the economy was lousy. Today we see we have had a record of continuing job growth for many many months in a row and the economy is in a different place so we don't have to do the Bush Tax Plan again. We need to tax the top 2 percent in this country and we need to close loopholes in the Tax laws.
There is a package to be shaped and I am confident that both parties of good will can do it, and we cannot afford the Bush Tax extension again for the wealthy.
Question: Would simply Tax loophole legislation work for you?
No: The math tends not to work simply closing loopholes. We have to also do taxes on the wealthy. That was part of my campaign. The voters agreed with me. We have to do it in a balanced way. Are we going to hold the middle class hostage, or are we going to do all this good stuff for the economy by taxing the wealthy who can afford it anyhow. I want a big, comprehensive deal that taxes the wealthy and focuses on job growth. We could do that simply by next week.
Posted by: daddy | November 14, 2012 at 01:48 PM
"He was still free spending enough to produce the dueling disasters of 2006 and 2008"
The economy was still pretty good in 2006. You would have to have some pretty convincing evidence spending had anything to do with 2006 ... compared to some other much more obvious reasons.
IMO Bush's "spending" is like Palin's "seeing Russia from her porch".
Posted by: boris | November 14, 2012 at 01:49 PM
kave, no I've not. I didn't expect anything other than an auto-response this quickly although I'd hope that he was getting a lot of our type of questions.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 14, 2012 at 01:50 PM
Securing our borders...there is a line that gets said ad nauseum but never actually happens.
Posted by: Janet | November 14, 2012 at 01:52 PM
Question: Immigration Reform?
What are your plans?"
Obama. I was glad to see so many Latino's voting. It is good for the country and makes me know we can get Immigration reform done. I can se that many Repubs are talking about Immigration reform now and we need to get that plan rolling very soon after my inauguration. I want a continuation of our strong border control, and serious penalties for companies that hire illegals. We need a new pathway for those coming here to have an avenue to citizenship. I think that is very important. We have to keep going with the Dream Act kids as well. They should not be under the cloud of deportation.
And if you have a PHD in Physics it ought to be easier for you to stay here. And Agricultural workers who get food to our tables. We can get it done.
Posted by: daddy | November 14, 2012 at 01:53 PM
The best summary of the press conference yet: (h/t Instapundit):They told me if I voted for Romney, I'd get a President who robotically repeated the same talking points over and over. And they were right!
Posted by: Kurt | November 14, 2012 at 01:53 PM
Tax hikes now.
Spending reform later.
Now where have I heard that before....
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | November 14, 2012 at 01:54 PM
Maybe these politicians don't understand the word "secure"?
Posted by: Janet | November 14, 2012 at 01:55 PM
Why? Name another country that lets illegals become citizens.
Why not?
And why do illegals get in-state tuition and preferential admissions?
Posted by: Rob Crawford | November 14, 2012 at 01:56 PM
"my inauguration"
I know you're paraphrasing, daddy, but did he really say "my inauguration"? Why does he say things like that? "My election" (to Putin). It's not HIS, it's the country's. He can say "his administration" and that's about it for the possessives.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 14, 2012 at 01:56 PM
Exactly, Rob. exactly.
Posted by: Janet | November 14, 2012 at 01:57 PM
Chuch Todd: Should you have known sooner about Petraeus, or are you saying you just withheld judgement?
I am withholding judgement. We don't have all the info yet. I have confidence in the FBI. I will wait. Had we ben told you would be asking why was I intervening in a criminal investigation.
Regarding taxes I am open to ideas from both sides that protects the Middle Class and fixes all the stuff I mentioned earlier. I think it is a solvable problem, our debt and our economy and I am confident that it can be done. My budget doesn't do that and I don't expect them to accept my budget. What I will not accept is a vague process of loophole fixes or creative acounting that in 6 months has me up here having to tax everyone who makes less than 250 K a year. The wealthy are not paying as much as they should and that is what was the message from this campaign---don't make the Middle Class bear the burden, make the wealthy bear their fair share.
Posted by: daddy | November 14, 2012 at 01:58 PM
Gawd I hate that s.o.b.!
Posted by: kave | November 14, 2012 at 01:59 PM
Question: Have you talked to Gov Romney to talk about how you 2 can work together?
Uhhh. I think he did a terrific job running the Olympics. If he has ideas about how to make the federal Govt more friendly and how to work better I would be glad to hear those. I am not prejudging him or any of his ideas.
Posted by: daddy | November 14, 2012 at 02:00 PM
lie, lie, lie, lie, lie!
Posted by: kave | November 14, 2012 at 02:01 PM
Mel I am sure you caught his refusal to use gimmicks like Dynamic Scoring.
Posted by: Old Lurker | November 14, 2012 at 02:01 PM
The economy was still pretty good in 2006
I was talking about the elections which turned Congress to the donks and screwed the economy.
IMO Bush's "spending" is like Palin's "seeing Russia from her porch".
Entitlements increased under Bush by a significant amount. That's what compassionate conservatism seemed to be about.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 14, 2012 at 02:01 PM
"But I stand by my campaign message that he's a hate-filled murderer who wants to steal your lady parts."
Posted by: Rob Crawford | November 14, 2012 at 02:01 PM
"Obama says nothing. You will have to talk to the FBI. I don't know anything. I can't meddle in Criminal investigations. That's how we do things here. I can't prejudge. We follow protocols here. Talk to the FBI."
daddy, there's Obama's own precedent: he could have called Petraeus's actions stupid.
Posted by: Frau Doof bleibt doof | November 14, 2012 at 02:02 PM
Question: We hear complaints you have not reached out enough to Congress. Will you do so this term?
Obama: I have a lot of good relationships on both side of the aisle. I can always do better. All of us can do better in dealing with our working relationships. Michell and I said last night what an honor it is to be put in this position. "I hope to be an even better president in my second term than I was in my first Term."
Posted by: daddy | November 14, 2012 at 02:02 PM
Obama will not let go go of the tax the rich scheme. Hold on tight folks, we are going over the cliff...
Posted by: maryrose | November 14, 2012 at 02:03 PM
Are any of the reporters asking anything that's remotely difficult or really pressing Zero on Benghazi, Petraeus, etc?
I'm sure I already know the answer...
Posted by: James D. | November 14, 2012 at 02:03 PM
What I will not accept is a vague process of loophole fixes or creative acounting that in 6 months has me up here having to tax everyone who makes less than 250 K a year.
If Republicans agree to this bullshit, this is exactly the line of argument SCOAMF will use to raise taxes. He has told us what he intends to do.
How is this so hard for Republicans to see?
Posted by: Soylent Red | November 14, 2012 at 02:03 PM
Well, at least he's setting an obtainable goal.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | November 14, 2012 at 02:04 PM
I do not count on them. I want government to leave me alone. I don't want anyone to fight for me....just leave me alone.
White House requested Rice go on the shows!!
Posted by: Janet | November 14, 2012 at 02:04 PM
Earth to Obama:
You were not a good president in your first term.
How much government wasted money would we save if we went over the cliff for about 10 days, or until Bammy caves?
Posted by: maryrose | November 14, 2012 at 02:05 PM
How is this so hard for Republicans to see?
Their heads are spinning from listening to people tell them what they did wrong.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 14, 2012 at 02:05 PM
"I hope to be an even better president in my second term than I was in my first Term."
Did he actually say that?
My grandfather would be a better president than Zero was in his first term, and he's been dead for 25 years.
Posted by: James D. | November 14, 2012 at 02:05 PM
daddy,
Rick Perry should have stayed home. He was on medication and in severe pain. He isn't a great debater anyway. He ruined any chance he had at being president and maybe maintaining his position as governor. He governs correctly, he gives great speeches, but his major weakness is debating.
Posted by: Sue | November 14, 2012 at 02:05 PM
I HATE this guy
Posted by: Old Lurker | November 14, 2012 at 02:05 PM
Question: Senator Graham says he does not trust Susan Rice after what she said about Benghazi. Will you promote her?
Rice acted with grace and strength. She gave hr best understanding of the situation to us. For McCain and Graham to go after hr and besmirch her reputation for info she was passed that she had nothing to do with except accept, is outrageous. It is after the Election. That should not happen. If McCain and Graham have a problem they should attack me, not the UN Ambassador because they think she is an easy target, then they have a problem with me.
Posted by: daddy | November 14, 2012 at 02:05 PM
Why did he send the UN Ambassador out if she didn't know anything???
Posted by: Janet | November 14, 2012 at 02:05 PM
Name another country that lets illegals become citizens.
Germany.
Canada.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | November 14, 2012 at 02:06 PM
Wouldn't it be nice if the JEF stood up for the country the way he does Susan Rice.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 14, 2012 at 02:06 PM
"I hope to be an even better president in my second term than I was in my first Term."
Ahhhh...more golf.
Posted by: Sue | November 14, 2012 at 02:06 PM
"I was talking about the elections which turned Congress to the donks and screwed the economy"
GMAFB ... you wrote and I quoted ...
Saying the election of dims in 2006 hurt the economy is NOT evidence that spending produced the 2006 election disaster.Posted by: boris | November 14, 2012 at 02:07 PM
Rice acted with grace and strength.
But not the poise and confidence of a seasoned athlete, that's for sure.
Posted by: hit and run | November 14, 2012 at 02:07 PM
Janet:
Rice is toast ,at least as far as being SOS.
Hil and Panetta are in Australia now coordinating their bs cover story on Benghazi. I hope they have good lawyers.
Posted by: maryrose | November 14, 2012 at 02:07 PM
Correct. We do NOT know what this administration thinks & the State dept. thinks.
Posted by: Janet | November 14, 2012 at 02:08 PM
WTF does Obama gushing about loving the middle class have to do with answering a question about Benghazi?
Posted by: Janet | November 14, 2012 at 02:10 PM
What's Obama and VAlJar going to do to Lindsey and McCain. He can't revenge them in anyway at all. They however can screw him out of his preferred SOS.
Deal with you . Mr. Call My Bluff.Don't make me laugh...
Obama's back to what he does best-threatening people. Disgusting ,vile person.
Posted by: maryrose | November 14, 2012 at 02:11 PM
I don't want anyone in DC "thinking" about me.
Posted by: Janet | November 14, 2012 at 02:11 PM
Rice acted with grace and strength. She gave hr best understanding of the situation to us.
This evil, lying monster wouldn't know grace or strength if they bit him on the ass, nor would any of his appointees.
And the idea that the freaking UN Ambassador was the one "giving her best understanding" rather than saying precisely what her superiors (Zero, and possibly Hillary) told her to say, is so self-evidently a lie that it's amazing that even a dishonest narcissist like Zero could get the words out with a straight face.
Maybe we'll be lucky and an asteroid will hit the DC area and turn everything inside the Beltway into a smoking crater (ideally on a day when myself, Janet, Clarice and any other local JOMers are all on vacation out of the area, of course!). That's about the only hope this country has, as far as I can see.
Posted by: James D. | November 14, 2012 at 02:11 PM
Ed Henry: Do you think you have a Masndat
Sean Smith's dad says the families have ben waiting or 2 months. On 9/11 did you issue any orders to anyone to try to protect their lives on 9/11?
Obama: I will answer that to the families. If you don't think I did everything that could protect those guys then you don't know how our Govt and our Military works. Immediately on finding out that our folks were in danger I sent out orders to do whatever it takes to keep them safe.
Regarding Mandates, My Mandate from the election is to help the Middle Class. Nothing else, not the special interests, only the Middle Class. That is my mandate. I was reelected to do the work that the Middle Class and small businesses need accomplished for the future. When you travel around and see all the wonderful spirit of the people in the country and the helping and optimism and the business that stayed open and it makes you want to give them better Govt than they have ben getting It makes me think "How can I do better for them?" I do not the Fed Govt can make a difference. Look on the Jersey Coast. It' hasnt' been perfect but it has been fast and robust and that is as metaphor for what I want the Govt to be.
Posted by: daddy | November 14, 2012 at 02:12 PM
That makes it wise?
Posted by: Rob Crawford | November 14, 2012 at 02:12 PM
It uses up time.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | November 14, 2012 at 02:13 PM
Geex, daddy, I hope you put in for hazardous duty pay for listening to that jackass. I sure couldn't.
Posted by: lyle | November 14, 2012 at 02:13 PM
Rice an easy target. She's a blitthering idiot who LIED to all Americans to cover your ass, Obama.
Posted by: maryrose | November 14, 2012 at 02:14 PM